Marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values. That sentence is inflammatory, perhaps even a hate crime.

At least it is in Oakland, Calif. That city's government says those words, italicized here, constitute something akin to hate speech and can be proscribed from the government's open e-mail system and employee bulletin board.

When the McCain-Feingold law empowered government to regulate the quantity, content and timing of political campaign speech about government, it was predictable that the right of free speech would increasingly be sacrificed to various social objectives that free speech supposedly impedes. And it was predictable that speech suppression would become an instrument of cultural combat, used to settle ideological scores and advance political agendas by silencing adversaries.

That has happened in Oakland. And, predictably, the ineffable U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ratified this abridgement of First Amendment protections. Fortunately, overturning the 9th Circuit is steady work for the U.S. Supreme Court.

I dont think free speech will be an issue as long as it is in the consitution. I would never want to silence someone for his/her religious beliefs, but when it comes to legislation being put into place for a religious gain, Im going to have to do something to stop this.

The consitution was not drafted for any religion and infact, makes no reference to any diety at all. So the whole "marrage is sacred and should be between a man and a women" will only be a statement of free speach, not a real legislative thought. If it does, then I will begin to question Christianitys motives with the government. This is a secular society, always has been, always will be. Thomas Jefferson was not thinking of christianity when he drafted those amendments. He was thinking of equality.

Is it just me, or is anyone else puzzled by the fact that liberals are the chief censors today? It's a little counterintuitive, in some ways. But conservatives are the champions of free speech today, especially on the Supreme Court.

Liberals "know whats best" they are only for Free Speech when it benefits them. Just as any other "right" or privalege. They are the "enlightened" and consider the rest of us ignorant boobs that need taken care of.

Yes. Too bad alluding to the Morse ET AL v. Fredericks won't help you as the ruling was a sustaining of settled law. Fredericks was a high school student who attended a high school authorized event during normal school hours. His actions violated existing school policy which justified Morse in disciplining the boy.

Frankly had Fredericks pulled his stunt elsewhere, like say 5-6 blocks away from the school, he might have been able to argue his First Amendment rights provided he accepted a default ruling of misdemeanor truancy. But since he specifically parked himself at a school event, during the normal school hours he could not claim he was NOT under the school's jurisdiction at that time, and his actions warranted his suspension by Morse.

I'd suggest you read the oral arguments for a good laugh. The kid wanted to try to stick it to the principal who had recently disciplined him for another incident at school, and it looks like it backfired on him.

So how exactly were you trying to tie this case to the issue of First Amendment rights and censorship?

BTW, you should look up the term "false premise" before continuing this thread methinks....

Gee, I don't know. Maybe its because they are censoring him because its percieved to be promoting drug use, which is against school policy.

Click to expand...

And I can easily tell you haven't bothered to read the SCOTUS ruling, the opinions of the Justices, nor even the oral arguments presented by the student's counsel before SCOTUS. Figures. You're just another lemming who thinks that students have the right to do as they wish with impunity. Grow up.

Figures. You're just another lemming who thinks that students have the right to do as they wish with impunity. Grow up.

Click to expand...

Not do as they wish, say what they want.

I would hold, however, that the school's interest in protecting its students from exposure to speech "reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use," ante, at 1, cannot justify disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs. The First Amendment demands more, indeed, much more.

You're just another lemming who thinks that students have the right to do as they wish with impunity. Grow up.

Click to expand...

Which, amusingly enough, I don't even believe. Rather I was pointing out that conservatives are not always for free speech and liberals are not always against it. But you decided to make the asinine claim that this case had nothing to do with the first amendment, and then accused me of not reading it when if YOU had read it, you would have noticed in the dissent Stevens specifically mentions the 1st Amendment.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!